MASTER 
NEGATIVE 

NO.  95-82459- 12 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  (Title  17,  United  States  Code) 
governs  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other  reproductions  of  copyrighted 
materials  including  foreign  works  under  certain  conditions.  In  addition, 
the  United  States  extends  protection  to  foreign  works  by  means  of 
various  international  conventions,  bilateral  agreements,  and 
proclamations. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and  archives  are 
authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other  reproduction.  One  of  these 
specified  conditions  is  that  the  photocopy  or  reproduction  Is  not  to  be 
"used  for  any  purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or  research." 
If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a  photocopy  or  reproduction 
for  purposes  In  excess  of  "fair  use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright 
infringement. 

The  Columbia  University  Libraries  reserve  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copying  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order  would  involve 
violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


Author: 


Browne,  Stewart 


Title: 


The  single  tax 


Place: 


[New  York] 


Date: 


[1914] 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DIVISION 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


MASTER   NEGATIVE   # 


ORIGINAL  MATERIAL  AS  FILMED  -    EXISTING  BIBLIOGRAPHIC  RECORD 


Busine 
D130 

B815 

BS 

• 

Browne,  Stewart 
The  single  tax, 
16  p. 

,  ^New 

York, 

1914j 

1.  Single  tax. 

D 

• 

' 


RESTRICTIONS  ON  USE: 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


FILM  SIZE:        "^"^ 


REDUCTION  RATIO: 


[X)i 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:  lA 


@ 


IB      ilB 


DATE  FILMED:  ^-ll'^S 


TRACKING  #  : 


y^5//     0Coi9f 


INITIALS 


■.M 


FILMED  BY  PRESERVATION  RESOURCES,  BETHLEHEM.  PA. 


> 


> 

Im 


.'^' 


.-v^' 


^. 


^ 


^ 


^^ 


CJI 

3 

3 


Q) 
CT 
O  > 

%^ 

Is 

^£ 

N  CO 
N)P 

CJI 
(DX 
^-< 
COM 

O 


^ 


"V 


3 
3 


> 

o  m 

CD  O 
OQ 


CJlZJ  ^ 

o^D  -z. 

-vj  o  o 

C/) 


< 

N 


X 

ISI 


At' 


4. 


^ 


a? 


nP-? 


^. 


3^ 


^^.7^ 


'^J. 


O:, 


OJ 


A. 


<p-^ 


v^ 


^y 


to 

o 
o 

3 
3 


o 

3 
3 


o 
o 

3 
3 


O 


ri^i^i^pi^i^Ei? 


11^  11^  I 


CO 


o^ 


00 


o 


00 


ro 
en 


1.0  mm 


1.5  mm 


2.0  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghi|klmnopqrstuvwxyz  1234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzl234567890 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


^o 


2.5  mm 


ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz 

1234567890 


r 

V 


^^' 
^ 


& 


^o 


^"^ 


f^ 


^ts- 


^.*r>. 


♦ 


'4^ 


fs 


L^ 


V 


l« 


.* 


1> 


bTo 


vP 


^^ 


tvr 


<^ 


^ 


^CP 


f^ 


^ 


m 

H 
9 

O 

O 

■o  m  -o 

>  c  cd 
X  TJ  ^ 

0(/)      5 

m 

3D 
O 

m 


/ftf. 


''  ^-^ 


<»^ 


3 
3 


II 


3 

3 


}r 


f-v 


'*->^»*C*fc».v*«^.«' 


n 


THE  UBRARIES 


Graduate 

SCHOOL  OF  BUSINESS 
Library 


/ 


Alii 


-^iJS^^^t^Ai^kj^' 


t 


^'r^<iw»'»ji<ry^»»g»j  '4-s 


THE  SINGLE  TAX 


BY  STEWART  BROWNE 


i 


*    • '  • 


^     •     *  <  •     >  « 


•  •  • 

» '  •   »     . 

•  »  •  I     I  % 

*  •  •     I  • 


!  '*•  1 '. 


•   •  r  ». 


•    •     <         • 


•        *  »        • 


•     .-     •  • 


•      '     •!        • 


»-l^-     4>T^ 


vT'  AT_.-  ■I'  y-M 


-^y?^' 


47!mE; 


-"^^Jkr  ieC^  ' .!«: 


L^NNto 


.^«*.  yina :'%-t0i>tf 


'^4 


^-wj^S 


if: 


A 


J.     \ 


.J 


»      •      ■>     » .  "     " 
,   .  »     •  •    • 


«       * 


■1   .    • 


•    » 


^  THE  SINGLE  TAX 

J  By  Stewart  Browne. 

A  Single  Tax  propaganda  is  now  being  preached  in  New  Yoil 
City  and  State,  and  the  statements  of  the  benefits  to  accrue  are  most 
alluring.  These  benefits  are:  Increased  work,  increased  wages,  re- 
duced cost  of  living,  reduced  rents,  abolition  of  poverty,  and  a  pana- 
cea for  all  the  ills  that  flesh  and  civilization  are  heir  to. 

This  propaganda  calls  for  thorough  and  logical  investigatioD 
from  every  standpoint;  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  give  such  in  thk 
article,  from  the  standpoint  that  the  Single  Tax  cannot  be  shifted  from 
the  land  owner  to  the  tenant  and  consumer. 

TTie  leader  of  this  Single  Tax  crusade  is  a  Mr.  Fels  of  Phila^ 
delphia,  who  has  made  a  large  fortune  in  the  '*soap  business."  H^ 
is  spending  fully  $100,000  a  year  for  literature,  meetings,  and  send- 
ing paid  speakers  through  this  State  preaching  the  Single  Tax  Gospel, 
and  he  is  aided  by  paid  assistants,  who  in  turn,  are  ably  seconded  by  a 
number  of  most  charming  and  estimable  gentlemen  in  their  respectivt 
business  vocations,  club  and  home  Ufe. 

VALUE 

Nothing  in  the  world  has  value  in  and  of  itself,  but  only  tht 
potentialities  of  value.  Land  in  this  respect  is  exactly  the  same  at 
water,  oil,  coal,  iron  and  other  ores,  timber,  the  lower  animal  kingdom, 
and  even  man;  they  are  all  inert  masses  produced  alike  by  force. 

The  land  owner  in  cities  and  towns  bought  his  land  and  he 
prepares  it  by  excavation,  leveling,  or  blasting,  and  buys  building 
material  and  erects  a  building  on  said  land.  All  this  he  does  from 
the  proceeds  of  the  savings  of  his  daily  labor  and  by  daily  labor,  and 
with  or  without  the  assistance  of  others  whom  he  pays  out  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  savings  of  his  daily  labor.  The  building  is  now 
ready  for  occupancy,  but  it  has  no  value,  but  only  the  potentialities 
of  value,  until  the  community  buys  it  or  rents  it,  when  value  emerges. 

Tlie  farmer  bought  his  land  and  prepares  it  and  sows  it  for 
crops;  the  rain  and  the  sun  ripen  such  crops  and  he  gathers  them  in; 
but  the  crops,  when  gathered,  have  only  potentialities  of  value,  and 
value  only  emerges  when  the  community  buys  them.  The  farmer  did 
all  the  above  either  with  the  proceeds  of  the  savings  of  his  daily 
labor  or  by  daily  labor. 

The  manufacturer  either  buys  or  rents  a  factory  with  its  land, 
or  buys  the  land  and  erects  a  building,  and  buys  and  erects  the  ma- 
chinery; buys  raw  material  and  pays  employees  to  work  it  up  into 


I 


[ 


-  «*«r.»:WiSri».HiS'*'^>aW«ui««P 


k<.«&-^' 


'^       I 


finished  articles,  but  none  of  these  articles  have  value  until  they  are 
purchased  by  the  community.  All  that  he  bought,  including  his  em- 
ployees' daily  labor,  he  paid  for  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  savings 
of  his  daily  labor. 

The  merchant  either  buys  or  rents  the  store  in  which  he  places 
the  goods  that  he  buys  and  with  or  without  the  aid  of  others  sells 
them  to  the  community,  but  until  sold  such  goods  have  no  value. 
The  merchant  paid  for  everything  he  bought  and  the  employees  he 
paid,  etc.,  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  savings  of  his  daily  labor. 

And  so  on,  with  railroads,  steamships,  hotels,  theatres,  and  all 
kinds  of  human  activities  in  all  civilized  communities. 

The  activities  of  the  urban  land  owner,  the  farmer,  the  manu- 
facturer, the  merchant,  etc.,  are  all  alike,  none  more,  none  less,  ir- 
respective of  their  several  occupations. 

The  value,  therefore,  of  everything  is  fixed  solely  by  the  com- 
munity in  its  impelling  desire  to  satisfy  the  primitive  cravings  of  its 
stomach,  to  cover  its  body,  to  tickle  its  mental  exhilarations  and 
satisfy  its  senses ;  all  these  acts  from  the  millionaire  to  the  tramp  are 
non-intelligent.  In  satisfying  all  these  it  is  not  the  intention  to  in- 
crease the  value  of  the  products  of  city  or  town  realty,  farm  land, 
factories  or  stores,  etc.     TTie  very  reverse  is  true. 

Remember,  that  fully  one-half  of  man's  labor,  from  the  dawn 
of  history  till  now,  had,  and  has,  and  will  continue  to  have,  no  value. 

When,  therefore,  value  is  mentioned  in  this  article  it  means  the 
price  that  is  paid  for  the  products  of  land,  land  and  buildings,  fac- 
tories, etc.  Elxchange  value  and  not  the  cost  of  production  is  the 
only  value  known  to  man;  therefore  everything  sold  has  value  to  the 
seller  when  sold,  but  only  the  potentialities  of  value  to  the  buyer. 

LAND  "INCREMENT" 

AND 

INDUSTRIAL  OR  FINANCIAL  "GOOD  WILL/' 

'  With  pressure  of  increasing  population  and  consequent  increas- 

ing demand  for  all  things  that  man  thinks  he  can't  do  without,  comes 
annual  increasing  realty  values  which  is  improperly  called  "unearned 
increment,"  unless  it  means  increment  because  not  ^'cashed  in*;  in- 
creasing demand  for  banking  credit,  for  food  stuffs,  and  for  all  manu- 
factured products,  not  omitting  automobiles,  produces  "good  will," 
which  is  exactly  the  same  thing  as  realty  so-called  "unearned  incre- 
ment"; the  only  difference  being  that  the  annual  net  income  from 
Manhattan  realty,  including  the  so-called  "unearned  increment,"  ex- 
cept in  a  few  cases,  is  not  over  8  per  cent,  per  annum  on  the  owned 
(excluding  borrowed)  capital  invested;  while  the  annual  net  income 


in  manufacturing  and  merchandising  runs  all  the  way  from  20  pei 
cent,  to  100  per  cent,  on  the  owned  (excluding  borrowed)  capital  in- 
vested, depending  upon  the  number  of  times  in  each  year  the  stock  can 
be  "turned  over."  The  net  profit  in  banking  is  from  10  per  cent,  up- 
wards on  capital. 

net  profit  in  banking  is  from  10  per  cent,  upwards  on  capital.  ^' 

Had  "increment  value"  not  belonged  to  the  individual,  this 
country  would  yet  be  in  its  infancy.  It  is  the  speculative  profit  that 
has  produced  our  present  day  civilization.  Primitive  man  worked 
to  feed  his  stomach;  civilized  man  works  to  feed  his  bank  accoimt. 

LAND  A  MONOPOLY  AND  LIMITED  IN  AREA? 

It  is  claimed  that  land  is  a  monopoly.  Land  is  not  a  monopoly, 
but  a  commodity,  the  same  as  any  other  commodity,  and  is  bought  and 
sold  freely.  It  is  claimed  that  some  people  won't  sell  land;  there  ar^ 
also  people  who  won't  sell  other  things  they  own.  For  every  one 
that  won't  sell  land  there  are  hundreds  of  thousands  who  won't  buy 
land.  The  trouble  is  not  that  there  are  no  sellers  of  realty,  but  there 
are  no  buyers.  One-half  of  Manhattan  realty  can  be  bought  for 
less  than  it  cost.  "Land  a  Monopoly?"  How  little  these  estimable 
Single  Taxers  know.  ; 

It  is  claimed  that  land  is  limited  in  area.  Present  day  humanity 
need  not  worry  about  the  limited  area  of  land  when  one-half  of  the 
earth's  surface  is  unoccupied.  These  estimable  Single  Taxers  can 
get  all  the  land  they  want  for  nothing;  the  trouble  with  them  is,  the 
land  they  want  is  right  here  in  Manhattan,  preferably  on  corner  of 
Wall  and  Broadway,  the  value  potentialities  of  which  they  never  as- 
sisted in  creating.  They  want  to  confiscate  the  labor  of  others  for 
themselves  without  paying  therefor,  and  at  the  same!  time  hold  fast  to 
all  they  own. 

Land  is  no  more  limited  in  area  than  oil,  coal,  and  other  ore  de- 
posits, timber,  and  food  products.  Nature,  and  not  legal  statutes, 
provides  for  that. 

MANHATTAN  REALTY. 

The  present  aggregate  assessed  value  of  Manhattan  land  is 
roughly  Three  Billion  Dollars.  These  estimable  Single  Taxers  state 
that  this  value  was  solely  created  by  the  community  at  large  and  not 
by  the  respective  and  successive  individual  owners;  that  the  value 
being  so  created  by  the  community,  belongs  to  the  community  and 
should  and  must  be  confiscated  to  the  community  without  the  indir 
vidual  owners  being  compensated.     They  erroneously  state  that  the 


I 


I 


»' 


r^x 


-1 

-J 


community  creates  value,  when  it  only  creates  the  demand  and  sup- 
ply conditions  that  enter  into  prices  and  they  deliberately  omit  to 
State  that  the  cost  of  production  that  makes  such  prices  possible  was 
created  and  paid  for  by  the  land  owners. 

They  further  state  that  the  Almighty  created  the  land  for  the 
foenefit  of  man  collectively  and  not  individually,  and  that  there  should 
be  no  private  ownership  of  land. 

(  There  being  nothing  to  prove  or  disprove  that  the  Almighty 
created  land,  and  that  if  he  did,  what  his  intentions  were,  I  leave 
ihose  questions  as  a  disputed  point  beyond  the  limits  of  logical  dis- 
cussion. 

I  admit  that  the  community  creates  the  demand  and  supply  con- 
ditions that  enter  into  Manhattan's  assessed  land  value  of  Three  Bil- 
lion Dollars,  but  the  millions  of  dead  and  gone  and  also  hundreds  of 
thousands  of  living  owners,  by  their  stored  and  daily  labor,  volun- 
tarily, actively  and  intelligently  applied,  created  the  potentialities 
"that  made  such  value  possible.  They  represented  intelligent  frugal- 
ity. They  built  all  the  buildings  in  New  York,  without  which  all 
New  York  City  land  would  not  be  worth  One  Thousand  Dollars. 
The  non-land  owners  came  to  New  York  to  better  their  conditions 
and  did  so.  and  others  were  born  here,  but  neither  with  the  intention 
of  increasing  the  value  of  Manhattan  real  estate.  They  could  have 
bought  realty  as  the  land  owners  did,  but  they  spent  the  proceeds  of 
their  labor  instead  of  saving  it,  or,  if  saving  it,  chose  to  invest  it  in 
|Other  than  land. 

I  History  states  that  Manhattan  was  sold  in  the  year  1 626  for  $24. 

This  amount  was  the  savings  of  labor.  If  such  amount  had  been  in- 
1  vested  from  January  1st,  1626,  to  January  1st,  1914,  it  would  have 
amounted,  at  the  average  rate  of  interest  during  such  period  com- 
pounded semi-annually,  to  over  One  Billion  Dollars,  or  one-third  of 
the  present  value  of  Manhattan  land,  and  if  there  be  added  the  taxes 
and  special  assessments  paid  by  land  owners  on  non-improved  land 
from  1626  to  1914,  the  total  far  exceeds  Manhattan's  present  aggre- 
gate land  value. 


COMMUNITY  VALUE  OF  ALL  THINGS. 

f  While  I  admit  that,  with  civilized  division  of  labor,  the  com- 
munity alone  creates  the  supply  and  demand  conditions  that  enter  into 
.the  value  of  land,  likewise  of  buildings,  of  stomach  foods  and  drinks, 
;Of  body  clothing,  of  railroads,  of  steamships,  of  manufacturing  plants, 
of  hotels,  of  restaurants,  of  theatres,  of  soap  factories,  of  law  fac- 
-lories,  of  watch  factories.  There  is  no  value  in  anything  except  as 
and  until  the  community  pays  the  purchase  price  by  reason  of  their 


:*<?*»g»:givatH^'"w».ufftrf'?^^*^ 


non-intelligent  necessities.  But  while  the  community  fixes  the  value 
of  everything  by  the  prices  it  pays  for  what  it  desires,  it  does  not 
create  the  value  potentialities  of  anything,  a  very  important  diffec^ 
ence,  which  is  the  basic  fallacy  (if  he  be  honest)  or  basic  lie  (if  he 
be  dishonest)  of  the  Single  Taxer. 

The  curious  thing  about  these  estimable  Single  Taxers  is  that 
ihey  want  to  confiscate  land  values  because  they  belong  to  the  othei 
fellow.  Why  don't  they  propose  confiscating  Mr.  Fels*  "soap 
values,"  Mr.  Ingersoll's  "watch  values,"  Mr.  Leubuscher's  "law 
values,"  and  all  the  values  of  their  own  several  vocations,  which  have 
been  determined  exactly  as  land  values  have  been? 

COMMUNITY  FREE  FROM  TAXATION. 

These  United  States  became  a  Republic  by  reason  of  the  people 
demanding  "no  taxation  without  representation."  These  estimable 
Single  Taxers  demand  representation  not  only  without  taxation,  but 
taxation  at  the  other  fellow's  expense. 

No  nation  can  live  with  its  people  free  from  taxation  and  mili- 
tary service,  and  no  citizen  should  have  the  right  to  vote  unless  he 
pays  taxes  and  direct  taxes  and  becomes  liable  for  military  service. 

No  nation  in  history  has  had  its  people  free  from  taxation. 

i 

t 

CONFISCATION  OF  LAND  VALUES  BY  THE  STATE; 

These  estimable  Single  Taxers  ignore  the  fact  that  the  original 
and  ultimate  title  to  land  is  in  the  State;  that  the  State  deeded  land 
to  the  original  owners  for  actual  financial  and  other  legal  considera- 
tions, and  that  all  subsequent  owners  down  to  the  present  day  paid 
money  and  other  considerations  for  the  land  they  now  own,  subject 
to  the  State's  right  to  reasonably  tax  it,  and  subject  to  repurchase  ob 
paying  the  cash  value  thereof.  These  highly  estimable  Single  Taxers 
know  this  fact,  but  their  proposition  is  not  that  the  State  should  rer 
purchase  the  land  in  accordance  with  law,  at  present  cash  values,  but 
that  the  State  should  "whip  the  devil  round  the  stump"  and  con- 
fiscate the  rental  value  of  land  by  taxing  it  a  rate  equal  to  the  pre- 
vailing rate  of  interest  upon  such  value.  They  want  the  State  to  pass 
a  bill  giving  it  a  "license  to  steal"  for  the  benefit  (>)  of  non-real 
estate  owners. 

These  estimable  Single  Taxers  have  no  objection  to  stealing 
other  people's  property,  provided  they  do  not  go  to  jail  for  it.  When 
the  other  fellow  steals  it's  called  theft  and  he  is  indicted  and  jailed, 
but  when  they  steal,  it's  called  altruism  and  they  applaud  themselves 
as  reformers  and  uplifters. 


f 


^■39m0^"m-^'*mf.^^^V9^^- 


t^SSiSS^jjtkHJ 


SINGLE  TAX— COMMUNISM— SOCIALISM. 

_  These  estimable  Single  Taxers  fail  to  realize  that  the  Single 
Tax  IS  nothing  else  but  Communism  or  State  Socialism,  under  which 
the  conmiunity  through  the  State  is  the  sole  employer  and  the  citizens 
mdividually  the  paid  employees.  If  land  can  be  and  is  legally 
confiscated  without  compensation  by  and  to  the  State  under  guise  of 
Uxation,  then  everything  else  can  and  will  be  likewise  confiscated. 
There  is  no  other  possible  outcome. 

SPECULATION— SPECULATORS. 

These  estimable  Single  Taxers  are  fond  of  referring  to  land  and 
realty  speculators  and  speculation  as  if  they  were  criminals,  and  it 
a  crime  against  the  community,  instead  of  which  they  and  it  have 
done  more  to  rebuild  New  York  and  build  up  its  outskirts  than  all 
the  rest  of  the  community  put  together. 

As  soon  as  time  is  postulated,  speculation  enters ;  everything  in 
life  and  every  effort  of  man.  from  his  cradle  to  his  grave,  is  speculation. 
Even  Mr.  Pels  speculates  in  soap,  Mr.  Ingersoll  in  watches;  every 
Single  Taxer,  whether  he  be  lawyer,  doctor,  or  plain  tramp,  spec- 
ulates and  is  the  subject  of  speculation. 

IS  THE  SINGLE  TAX  CONSTITUTIONAL? 

The  Fifth  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 

provides  "that  private  property  shall  not  be  taken  for  public  purposes 

.-without  just  compensation."     I  believe  that  the  Supreme  Court  would 

:hold  the  Single  Tax  to  be  unconstitutional,  as  there  is  no  legal  or 

other  difference  between  confiscating  the  value  of  land  and  confis- 

^cating  its  assumed  income,  as  the  income  is  the  value  and  not  the  land. 

SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  CITY  BOND  ISSUE. 

For  Bond  purposes  the  aggregate  1913  assessed  valuation  of 
New  York  City's  reality  is  $8,006,647,861,  of  which  $4,590,892.- 
350  is  ordinary  land  values;  $2,796,344,754  is  building  values; 
$438,861,581  is  Special  Franchises,  and  $180,549,176  is  property 
not  segregated.  The  city  is.  by  the  State  Constitution,  limited  to  an 
outstanding  bond  issue  in  aggregate  amount  not  exceeding  1 0  per  cent, 
of  such  aggregate  assessed  valuation.  The  city  has  now  outstanding 
bonds  nearly  up  to  such  limit. 

Eliminate  from  taxation  building  values  of  $2,796,344,754. 
and  it  leaves  $5,210,303,107.  10  per  cent,  of  which  would  be 
$521,000,000.  the  legal  limit,  which  would  mean  the  city  would 
have  a  bond  issue  $370,000,000  in  excess  of  its  legal  limit. 

8 


Some  Single  Taxers  and  non-Single  Taxers  claim  that  the  con- 
fiscation of  land  values  will,  for  bond  issue  purposes,  legally  eliminate 
land  values  from  the  assessment  valuation;  this  I  don't  believe,  but, 
if  true,  then  there  will  be  no  realty  tax  securing  the  city's  bonds  as  re- 
quired by  the  State  Constitution. 

Every  bondholder  has  a  contract  with  the  city,  which  is  a  cor- 
poration, and  I  claim  (others  may  not  agree  with  this)  that  any  bond- 
holder can.  by  injunction  or  other  legal  proceedings,  prevent  the  city 
from  impairing  the  bondholders'  security,  even  although  authorized  to 
by  the  State  Legislature,  and  that  any  such  legislation  would  be  de- 
clared unconstitutional  as  impairing  contract  rights.  I  question  even  if 
an  amendment  to  the  State  Constitution  impairing  the  contract  rights 
of  the  city's  bondholders  would  be  constitutional ;  and  I  believe  that 
an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  would  declare  it 
unconstitutional.  This  would  not  be  a  case  of  a  Sovereign  State  re- 
pudiating or  impairing  its  own  contracts,  but  authorizing  a  Municipal 
Corporation  to  do  so.  ' 

Therefore,  no  more  bonds  could  be  issued  by  the  city  which 
would  be  legal  until  the  above  questions  were  tested  out  in  the  Courts 
of  highest  resort,  and  no  one  would  buy  such  bonds. 

The  City  needs  more  millions  for  necessary  public  improvements; 
where  is  the  money  to  come  from?  Will  these  estimable  Single 
Taxers  put  their  hands  in  their  own  pockets  and  contribute  the  neces^ 
sary  millions? 

These  estimable  Single  Taxers.  having  proposed  a  law  confis- 
cating land  values  and  exempting  buildings  from  taxation,  thereby 
impairing  the  city's  bond  contracts,  the  next  step  would  be  repudiation 
of  the  city's  present  bond  issues.  What's  the  Constitution  or  a  Li- 
cense to  Steal  between  friends  when  you  can  call  such  acts  "Al- 
truistic?" 

SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  CITY'S  CREDIT. 

The  mere  threat  of  the  Single  Tax  will  impair  the  city's  credit; 
but  with  the  Single  Tax  a  law,  the  City  of  New  York,  the  Empire 
City  of  the  New  World,  would  be  as  was  Elizabeth.  New  Jersey,  in 
the  80's  and  90's.    It  would  be  hopelessly  bankrupt. 

EFFECT  OF  THREAT  OF  SINGLE  TAX  ON  PRESENT 

MORTGAGES. 

Even  the  fear  of  the  Single  Tax  becoming  law  is  making  nearly 
all  lenders  on  mortgage  insist  that  present  mortgage  loans  be  reduced 
anywhere  from  10  per  cent,  to  30  per  cent.,  and  as  conditions  become 
more  acute  they  will  insist  upon  entire  payment. 


\ 


»«*«fj-^'* 


TM  -^t,     V  «>- 


EFFECT  OF  THREAT  OF  SINGLE  TAX  ON  FUTURE 

MORTGAGES. 

'«f  ml^!  ^^*'  °^**'  Single  Tax  is  already  preventing  the  free  lending 
'vair"nV"rf  =  and  where  lent,  for  very  small  percentage  of 
value,  and  is  diereby  materially  reducing  new  building  operations  If 
lenders  ^-ught  the  Single  Tax  would  pass,  not  one  dollar  would  be 

^Ihldv^Iat'lt  Ssli/touid  b?^^-  '"^'^  T"  '^"u^^ 
Single  Tax.  '-egisiature  would  be  asmme  enough  to  pass  the 


SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  PRESENT  MORTGAGES. 

SiJSfiOnnn^  '^^''^  ^'*f'*^^  I^J"^  °'  ^^^  York  was  roughly 
$2  790  222"Z'  K^y '^  .'^  $4,590,000,000  land  values  and 
*^./yO.OO0.000  buildmg  values.  Fully  90  per  cent,  of  realty  is 
mortgaged,  and  mortgaged  for  60  per  cent,  of  value  on  the  Average 
Assummg  these  assessed  values  to  be  the  mortgage  appraised  valuet 
jTT   ,  °"'«tand'ng  mortgages  would  be  $4,400,000  000  s^ 

bvlffe  and  "fi  "  "  "'"  "  ^"'^'"«  ^^'"^^  -'^  Prii.cipairhe5 

S.  ;L  '  '"J"^"""  companies,  savings  banks,  trust  companies, 

btle  companies  and  estates.    Confiscate  the  land  values  by  the  Single 

SleTuildtgtTuer  ""*'''"  "'"  ^  $1,600,000,000  in  excess 

if..l  ?r  1''Tu'  ?"f '^  "^^^f"  "^  ^°°t«"t  'o  '•ave  the  State 
»  ea  .  as  they  foolishly  think,  from  the  land  owners,  when  in  reality  the 

stealing  is  bankrupting  not  alone  the  land  owners,  but  the  life  and  fire 
insurance  companies,  the  savings  banks,  the  trust  companies,  the  title 
compames    and  the  widows  and  orphans  of  estates.     The  final  loss 
however,  falls  on  the  community  in  whose  favor  the  Single  Tax  i^ 
broposed.    So  much  for  Altruism.  ^ 

SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  FUTURE  MORTGAGES. 

With  the  Single  Tax  in  force,  no  mortgage  lender  would  lend 
on  city  property  over  40  per  cent,  to  50  per  cent,  of  the  building 
va  ue  and  for  the  first  year  or  two  would  probably  not  lend  at  all 
until  the  full  effects  of  the  Single  Tax  had  spent  itself. 

;        SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  VACANT  LOTS. 

.n.^ll^'"'  ?^  *^'V^'^  "'^'^'^  ^y  *''°"'  '70.000  wage  earners  and 
«iall  investors  ,n  Kings.  Queens.  Bronx  and  Richmond,  and  the 
aggregate  assessed  value  o   them  is  $462,000,000.  averaging  $2,500 

000  OoJ^'  "r  ""*•  ^Tt  ^f  ?  *"^^  •'»'*  ^°"Jd  be  roughly  $2^- 
000.000.  nearly  every  dollar  of  which  tax  would  be  lost  to  the  citj^ 


10 


as  most  owners,  finding  the  future  income  value  of  the  laud  confisr 
cated  for  all  time  to  the  city  and  requiring  them  to  pay  5  per  cent 
or  6  per  cent,  per  annum  on  its  assessed  value,  would  refuse  to  pay 
such  Single  Tax,  and  the  land  would  have  no  value  to  any  one  ex- 
cept to  the  few  who  might  want  to  build  for  their  own  use  and  with 
their  own  money.  Certainly  no  investor  and  no  mortgage  lender  would 
put  money  into  the  erection  of  new  buildings  for  the  purposes  of  rent- 
ing with  the  certainty  of  a  loss.  I  wonder  how  these  1 70,000  hard 
working  vacant  lot  owners  would  like  to  see  their  $454,000,000  land 
values  confiscated  to  the  community? 

Here  would  be  a  great  opportunity  for  these  estimable  Single 
Taxers  to  invest  their  money  for  good  and  so  that  their  heirs  could  not 
waste  it. 

SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  PARTIALLY  IMPROVED 

PROPERTY. 

Fully  60  per  cent,  of  the  square  area  of  Manhattan  land  is  par- 
tially and  inadequately  improved  with  old  rattle-trap  buildings.  The 
Single  Taxers  say  that  taxing  the  land  5  per  cent,  or  6  per  cent,  on 
its  annual  value  will  compel  the  owner  to  build  new  buildings.  The 
owner  has  no  hope  of  future  increased  land  value.  His  only  source 
of  income  is  from  the  building,  upon  which  he  must  earn  at  least 
7  per  cent,  to  10  per  cent,  gross  so  as  to  net  him,  say,  5  per  cent,  to 
6  per  cent,  upon  the  cost.  If  this  illustration  be  used  for  all  realty 
where  the  land  value  exceeds  the  building  value,  which  is  the  case  in 
90  per  cent,  of  such  real  estate  throughout  all  boroughs,  one  of  two 
things  must  happen;  rents  must  go  up  slightly  "to  run  even,"  or  the 
property  must  be  run  at  a  loss.  The  present  owners  won't,  therefore, 
improve  unless  the  rents  are  high  enough  to  show  an  annual  profit,  and 
certainly  mortgage  lenders  won't  lend  under  such  circumstances.  These 
estimable  Single  Taxers  believe  that  investors  and  mortgage  lenders 
will  invest  money  in  new  buildings  to  reduce  rents  to  please  them. 
TTie  result  will  be  that  the  City  will  become  the  owner  of  90  per  cent 
of  Manhattan's  partially  improved  realty,  as  the  most  of  such  prop- 
erty is  to-day  carried  at  a  loss  in  the  speculative  hope  that  values  in 
time  will  increase  and  that  owners  will  receive  the  entire  benefit. 
The  aggregate  assessed  value  of  such  land  is  probably  one-third  of 
Manhattan's  aggregate  assessed  land  value,  so  that  one- third  (or 
$50,000,000)  of  the  Single  Tax  in  Manhattan  would  be  uncollecl- 
able.  There  is  only  one  way  that  improvements  can  be  made  to  pay, 
and  that  is  by  over-improving  so  as  to  erect  a  building  costing  twice 
or  three  times  the  land  value,  which  means  congestion  and  reducing 
the  value  of  surrounding  property. 

11 


3 


-»^»-;5^r5»':**Brai*«r»«»WS5 


Ifeygrggggji 


1^^ 


A 


SINGLE  TAX  EFFECT  ON  IMPROVED  PROPERTIES. 

The  following  would  be  the  inequalities,  on  the  basis  of  a  tax 
rate  of,  say,  1 .90  on  land  and  building  combined,  and  a  Single  Tax 
rate  of  5  per  cent,  on  any  property  in  multiples  of  $1,000  value: 

1.  Where  the  building  value  is  twice  the  land  value  there 
would  be  a  saving  of  roughly  1 2j/2  per  cent,  in  present  taxes. 

2.  Where  the  building  value  is  thrice  the  land  value  there 
would  be  a  saving  of  roughly  35  per  cent,  in  present  taxes. 

3.  Where  the  land  value  is  twice  the  building  value  there 
would  be  an  increase  in  present  taxes  of  roughly  75  per  cent. 

4.  Where  the  land  value  is  thrice  the  building  value  there 
would  be  an  increase  in  present  taxes  of  roughly  100  per  cent. 

5.  Where  the  land  value  and  building  value  is  equal  there 
would  be  an  increase  in  present  taxes  of  roughly  30  per  cent.  Prop- 
erties coming  under  the  Nos.  1  and  2  illustrations,  which  produce 
congestion,  would  live  and  financially  be  benefitted.  Properties 
coming  under  Nos.  3  and  4  illustrations  could  not  live  under  present 
or  new  owners,  or  under  their  mortgage  lenders,  unless  rents  were 
-raised.  Properties  coming  under  No.  5  illustration  might  50  per  cent, 
of  them  live;  the  other  50  per  cent,  could  not  live  and  would  be 
bankrupt. 

I  therefore  estimate  that  two-thirds  of  the  improved  properties  in 
Manhattan  would  be  abandoned  to  the  City,  which  could  do  one  of 
two  things:  it  could  operate  these  buildings,  or  sell  them  at  public 
auction  or  private  sale.  What  prices  purchasers  might  pay  no  one 
can  say  in  advance,  so  I  vydll  not  attempt  it. 

SINGLE  TAX  RATE  5  PER  CENT.  MINIMUM. 

The  necessities  of  the  City's  1913  expenditure  required  realty 
taxes  of  nearly  $146,000,000.  This  means  a  starting  Single  Tax 
rate  of  5  per  cent,  as  a  minimum,  ascertained  in  the  following  man- 
ner: 5  per  cent,  on  1913  New  York  land  values  would  produce 
$229,544,600.  less  $50,000,000  estimated  uncollected  taxes  on  in- 
adequately improved  Manhattan  property  abandoned  to  the  City; 
less  $23,000,000  estimated  uncollected  taxes  on  suburban  vacant  lots 
abandoned  to  the  City;  and  less  at  a  low  estimate  $25,000,000 
uncollected  taxes  on  fully  improved  Manhattan  land.  The  City  s 
net  collection,  therefore,  from  a  5  per  cent.  Single  Tax  would  be 
$131,000,000,  or  $15,000,000  less  than  it  collected  in  1913,  which 
would  unquestionably  be  further  reduced  by  contingencies  unforeseen 
at  present.  As  the  community  would  be  free  from  taxes,  there  would 
be  no  check  on  public  expenditure;  it  would  increase  by  leaps  and 

12 


■ 


bounds,  and  a  5  per  cent,  rate  would  soon  increase  to  6  per  cent, 
then  to  7  per  cent.,  and  so  on  without  hnut. 

THE  SINGLE  TAX  AND  "BACK  TO  THE  FARM." 

These  estimable  Single  Taxers  must  foolishly  believe  that  die 
farmers  will  just  love  to  have  their  farm  land  values  confiscated;  that 
such  will  not  only  force  them  to  remain  on  the  farm,  but  will  encourage 
the  "back  to  the  farm"  movement  by  reducmg  the  farm  s  financial 
rewards. 

EFFECT  ON  CONSTRUCTION  OF  NEW  BUILDINGS. 

During  the  past  twenty  years  there  has  been  a  New  York  City 
building  epidemic,  until  to-day  there  is  an  over-production  everywhere 
and  in  every  class  of  building.     Construction  companies,  speculative 
builders,  realty  promoters  and  operators,  combined  with  mortgage 
lenders  making  liberal  loans,  have  produced  this  result.    Great  chances 
have  been  taken  and  increasing  land  values  alone  have  given  stabihty 
and  impetus  to  the  movement.     But  with  the  Single  Tax  m  force 
this  rebuilding  and  improving  would  stop  almost  completely,  tor  the 
following  reasons:      (1)  There  being  no  increasmg  land  values  to 
safeguard  full  loans  and  offset  physical  and  environment  depreciation, 
loans  would  never  exceed  between  40  per  cent,  and  50  per  cent,  ot 
building  values,  and  even  then  only  made  with  the  greatest  care; 
instead  of  mortgage  loans  being  considered  gilt-edge  investments  as 
at  present,  they  would  be  looked  upon  with  disfavor.     (I)  With  the 
maximum  profit  one-half  less  than  what  it  has  been,  very  few  would 
care  to  erect  new  buildings  with  the  probability  of  only  receivmg  5 
per  cent,  on  their  investment  and  with  the  certainty  of  the  principal 
of  their  investment  being  reduced  yearly  by  physical  and  environment 
depreciation;  yet  these  estimable  Single  Taxers,  with  a  total  disregard 
of  logic,  claim  that  cutting  the  annual  income  of  realty  operations  in 
two  will  increase  the  erection  of  new  buildmgs.     Why  not  cut  ail 
income  out  and  new  building  erection  will  be  still  further  stimulated? 
Let  me  suggest  that  possibly  these  estimable  Smgle  Taxers  consider 
that  new  buildings  will  be  erected  without  human  agency  or  human 
greed.    I  am  afraid,  estimable  Single  Taxers.  "that  the  Ahemsts  will 
get  you  if  you  don't  look  out. 

EFFECT  ON  WAGES. 
With  the  stoppage  of  erection  of  new  buildings  wage  earners  in 
the  building  trades  will  not  be  employed.     This  will  be  reflected  on 
all  wages.     They  will  consume  while  being  non-producers,  to  the 
detriment  of  the  community. 

13 


IH 


W" 
i 


« 


,^   ^^  .  :-^....    -V    K  I'l 


•»?e5_ 


liri 


1^ 
-4 


II: 


EFFECT  ON  RENTS. 

If  the  population  increases  in  the  future  as  in  the  past,  and  new 
buildings  do  not  keep  pace  with  the  increasing  population,  rents  will 
correspondingly  increase,  and  this  apart  from  tfie  tendency  that  the 
Single  Tax  will  have  to  increase  rents. 

EFFECT  ON  CONGESTION. 

The  Single  Tax  or  increased  land  tax  rate  and  a  reduced  build- 
ing tax  rate  to  make  new  buildings  pay  would  force  the  erection  of 
buildings  twice  or  three  times  the  value  of  the  land,  and  prevent  the 
erection  of  new  buildings  of  less  value  than  the  land.  This  would 
not  only  increase  congestion  but  put  a  premium  on  it,  and  would  also 
reduce  the  value  of  surrounding  property. 

To  redistribute  to  outlying  districts  the  present  congested  popu- 
lation in  the  East  Side  tenements  is  a  problem.  If  they  were  willing 
to  move  to  the  "outskirts,"  work  must  be  provided  for  them.  TTiey 
can't  travel  ten  and  fifteen  miles  twice  a  day  to  and  from  work,  and 
there  is  not  yet  sufficient  "rapid  transit"  for  them,  even  if  they  were 
willing  to  so  travel.  But  apart  from  this,  civilized  humanity,  rich 
and  poor,  dearly  loves  congestion,  whether  it  be  in  office  buildings, 
apartment  houses,  hotels  or  tenements;  in  fact,  the  growth  of  New 
York  has  been  due  to  its  congestion.  Without  congestion  New  York 
would  have  been  a  straggling  town  with  less  than  half  its  present 
population.  Congestion  is  beneficial  to  the  community,  but  it  should 
be  congestion  under  proper  restrictions  in  light  and  air. 

NIGGER  IN  THE  WOOD-PILE  TACTICS. 

These  estimable  Single  Taxers,  knowing  that  they  cannot  at 
present  pass  the  Single  Tax  bill  in  the  Legislature  have,  for  four 
years,  under  the  pretense  of  reducing  population  congestion,  reducing 
rent  and  improving  the  conditions  of  the  wage  earners,  unsuccessfully 
tried  to  pass  a  bill  making  the  land  tax  rate  double  the  building  tax 
rate.  Finding  that  the  Legislators  had  too  much  "horse  sense"  to 
accept  as  true  their  "rainbow  promises"  and  mis-statements,  they  have 
finally  concluded  that  they  cannot  pass  even  the  latter  bill  through  the 
Legislature;  and,  knowing  that  a  lie  always  travels  faster  and  further 
than  the  truth,  and  believing  that  it  will  be  easier  to  get  the  individual 
voter  to  accept  as  true  their  "rainbow  promises"  and  mis-statements, 
they  have  caused  to  be  introduced  a  bill  referring  the  question  to  a 
referendum  of  the  voters,  and  calmly  say  to  the  bill's  opponents: 
"Are  you  afraid  to  trust  the  people?"  when  as  a  fact  the  opponents 
are  afraid  to  trust  the  Single  Taxers,  because  of  their  mis-statements* 


14 


S::?«r^^»i?Sce*'3p»v»:H% 


This  is  another  case  of  these  estimable  Single  Taxers  "trying  to  whip 
the  devil  round  the  stump."  They  are  "long  on  promises"  to  th« 
voter.  We  have  laws  against  misleading  statements  made  by  security 
promoters,  and,  if  proven,  the  makers  of  them  go  to  jail.  These 
estimable  gentlemen  must  conclude  there  are  no  laws  against  mis- 
leading statements  made  by  Single  Tax  promoters. 

The  following  are  a  few  of  these  recklessly  misleading  promises: 

1 .  More  work  for  wage  earners. 

2.  Higher  wages  for  wage  earners. 

3.  A  living  wage  for  everyone. 

4.  Paradise  for  wage  earners  instead  of  present  hell. 

5.  Reduced  rent. 

6.  Reduced  cost  of  living. 

7.  Abolition  of  poverty. 

8.  Abolition  of  crime. 

9.  Abolition  of  overcrowding  in  rooms. 
10.     Reducing  congestion. 

There  are  only  two  promises  they  have  omitted:  "Living  on  tht 
fat  of  the  land  without  working,  and  abolition  of  death." 

Every  one  of  the  evils  which  I  have  quoted  as  arising  from  the 
Single  Tax  would  arise  from  a  bill  making  the  land  tax  rate  double 
that  of  the  building  tax  rate,  but  to  a  lesser  degree.  Such  method 
of  taxing  is  intended  as  the  forerunner  of  the  Single  Tax;  but  I  am 
afraid  that  the  evils  from  the  double  land  tax  would  be  so  self-evident 
that  these  estimable  Single  Taxers  would  have  to  "fly  the  country" 
before  they  had  an  opportunity  to  pass  the  Single  Tax.  Either  of 
diese  bills  would  produce  the  following  results,  but  in  different  d^ 
grees : 

Instead  of  increasing  work  it  would  reduce  it. 

Instead  of  increasing  wages  it  would  reduce  them. 

Instead  of  producing  Paradise  it  would  be  Hell. 

Instead  of  a  living  wage  for  everyone  (which  is  impossible)  it 
would  be  detrimental. 

Instead  of  reducing  rent  it  would  increase  it. 

Instead  of  reducing  the  cost  of  living  it  would  increase  it. 

Instead  of  abolishing  poverty  it  would  increase  it  slightly. 

Instead  of  reducing  crime  it  might,  if  anything,  increase  it. 

Instead  of  reducing  overcrowding  it  would  increase  it. 

Instead  of  reducing  congestion  it  would  increase  it. 

The  only  advantages  that  could  possibly  flow  from  either  of 
these  suggested  new  tax  laws  is  the  newspaper  and  other  prominence 
given  to  those  estimable  and  voluntary  Single  Taxers  that  they  would 
not  otherwise  enjoy  (Httle  frogs  in  a  big  puddle),  and  the  per  diem 


15 


19* 


and  other  remuneration  that  the  paid  Single  Taxers  receive,  which  is 
more  than  they  could  make  if  diey  worked  for  their  living  as  most 
of  us  have  to  do,  whether  land  owners  or  rent  payers.  Every  human 
being  is  a  slave  to  some  one  other;  all  of  us.  whether  rich  or  poor, 
are  wage  earners;  all  of  us  are  simply  "Clearing  Houses"  for  the 
other  fellow. 

If  these  estimable  Single  Taxers  want  their  tax  theories  carried 
out,  why  don't  they,  as  the  Mormons  did,  form  a  community  by 
and  of  tfiemselves  in  Mexico  or  Northwest  Australia?  Or  they  can 
go  back  to  anti-civilization  days,  when  there  was  no  division  of  labor 
and  when  each  individual  owned  for  himself  everything  he  individu- 
ally produced. 

In  conclusion,  the  World's  and  New  York's  civilization  has 
been  built  up  without  the  Single  Tax  or  the  "Whole  or  Partially 
Exempt  Building  Tax."  No  City,  Town  or  Village  in  the  World 
has  the  Single  Tax  in  force,  except  one  of  60,000  population,  and 
two  or  three  picayune  villages,  all  in  the  Canadian  Northwest,  and 
none  have  the  "Whole  or  Partially  Exempt  Building  Tax"  except 
one  or  two  towns  in  the  Canadian  Northwest,  and  three  or  four  very 
small  towns  in  New  Zealand  and  Australia,  and  the  result  in  all  has 
been  to  increase  congestion,  increase  rents,  wages  have  not  been  in- 
creased, and  realty  speculation  has  not  been  reduced.  There  are 
thousands  of  cities  and  towns  (New  York  is  one)  in  the  United 
States,  where  the  per  capita  new  building  erection  values,  are  higher 
than  in  the  few  small  towns  and  villages  having  the  Single  Tax  or  the 
Building  Exempt  Tax.  These  estimable  Single  Taxers  know  this, 
as  reports  on  these  towns'  and  villages'  conditions  have  been  published 
repeatedly. 

The  arguments  permitted  to  be  made  on  behalf  of  these  estim- 
able Single  Taxers  are  not  only  untrue  but  maliciously  false,  and 
those  responsible  for  them,  whoever  they  may  be,  are  enemies  of  the 
public  weal,  are  more  dangerous  than  Anarchists,  and  are  a  standing 
menace  to  our  American  civilization. 


^i 


1 70  BROADWAY,  NEW  YORK 

February  lOlh 
1914 


16 


--j^' 


■  «t%*»i»asr; 


■.-'r'?=T^"! 


£2k^ji2 


MLiSit^Mwctxnci 


»<«^S'^<%«>. 


«l 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  L  BRARIES 


0044247931 


hstf  oioxe 


FEB  1 4  IW 


u 


f 


1 


I 


i 


OCT      S  ^953 


-«,'fs«^««^»s^^ 


END  OF 
TITLE 


